Scotus Blog Case Judulang v. Holder
The case I am talking about today is Judulang v. Holder. In this case the United Stats wants to remove a lawful permanent resident who has lived here since 1974, because he was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in 1989. The main thing they reference is the former section 212© of the Immigration and Nationality Act 8, which allows a noncitizen to come into the country even with a criminal conviction. But ever since a case called Francis v. INS made section 212© able to be used for lawful permanent residents and non citizens trying to get into the country. But when congress felt that they needed change, in 1996 they repealed section 212© but made it so that anyone who would've been able to get it at the time can still use section 212© to their advantage. Since Judulang was convicted in 1989 and he met the requirement for section 212©. For some reason the immigration denied the wavier and told Judulang he had to leave the country. The board of Immigration and the ninth circuit(which also handles immigration) agreed with the board of immigration. This could mean anybody in Judulangs' situation would not be eligible from removal when convicted.
The constitutional question that comes into play here is one that it seems like a lot of people in the court and outside of the court are confused about and that is the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment is the amendment that so closely deals with immigration but when I researched more the constitution never discusses immigration it brings in the concept of immigration. Also to clarify the tenth says that this would be a state problem to deal with so I don't entirely know why this case is being challenged on the grounds of the constitution.
The main argument that Judulang had was that before the ruling by the BIA in 2005 in Matter of Blake and Matter of Brieva-Perez, he or any lawful permanent resident could apply for relief for any conviction even one such as voluntary manslaughter. He tried to get the law rationally reviewed under the Equal Protection clause but could not. He also says that when they ruled and change their practices it was contradictory and represents a retroactive change in the law.
The only real arguments that the U.S. made in this case were that section 212© relief is only available when there is a similarity between the reason they are being deported and the reason they are being removed. They also tried to invalidate his case against the board showing a change in law and that it should be reviewed.
I am almost sure that this case will go in favor Judulang because the U.S. has minimal success in convincing the supreme court justices of anything and also the supreme justices seem to ask questions that seem look in favor of Judulang.
The constitutional question that comes into play here is one that it seems like a lot of people in the court and outside of the court are confused about and that is the tenth amendment. The tenth amendment is the amendment that so closely deals with immigration but when I researched more the constitution never discusses immigration it brings in the concept of immigration. Also to clarify the tenth says that this would be a state problem to deal with so I don't entirely know why this case is being challenged on the grounds of the constitution.
The main argument that Judulang had was that before the ruling by the BIA in 2005 in Matter of Blake and Matter of Brieva-Perez, he or any lawful permanent resident could apply for relief for any conviction even one such as voluntary manslaughter. He tried to get the law rationally reviewed under the Equal Protection clause but could not. He also says that when they ruled and change their practices it was contradictory and represents a retroactive change in the law.
The only real arguments that the U.S. made in this case were that section 212© relief is only available when there is a similarity between the reason they are being deported and the reason they are being removed. They also tried to invalidate his case against the board showing a change in law and that it should be reviewed.
I am almost sure that this case will go in favor Judulang because the U.S. has minimal success in convincing the supreme court justices of anything and also the supreme justices seem to ask questions that seem look in favor of Judulang.
